On poverty

If you were a realist, you would concede that part of the problem is the dependency on welfare systems having completely ****ed up black communities. The ones that reward kicking the father out of the house and the mom having 17 gd children she's not raising properly.

 

It doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things. It was a curious statement that on the surface, didn't seem to be true, so I thought you would explain why you thought it was true, and you didn't. Just "It's all the government."

So OK.

 

Ah. You have an Advantage plan. So do I. It is a great deal. This is how these plans work. The federal government bills a bit more than $100 per month for part B medicare coverage. They deduct it from the social security payments. Then they send those funds to the insurance company that is underwriting your Advantage plan. Since the funds are enough to allow the insurance company to pay the Medicare part B claims and more, there are benefits available that aren't available without them. The most important thing they do is cover the 20% of costs that part B doesn't pay less defined copayments.

The details of these plans are laid out by government but part B is managed by the insurance carrier. Without the advantage plan, the person's part B coverage is managed by government. Part A is managed by government as well and is not part of the Advantage plan. In my case, I pay $280 per year for the part D {prescription} coverage but nothing extra for the part B coverage. There are copayments involved. My wife's advantage plan doesn't have part D included so she pays nothing for her Advantage plan other than the amount deducted from Social Security. Every senior should have an Advantage plan if not a Medicare supplement plan.

 

But the ACA has expanded medicare, so there is that.

 

So, your example is a single wide, no one in CA are purchasing them, most realtors won't even bother with them and they don't make them any more in CA.

How little you understand the CA market.

One cannot purchase a used mobile in CA that isn't installed on a lot.

Not talking about other states.

In CA, the point is moot. I live in CA, and millions who live in CA live here not because it's cheap, but because the price is worth it.

Moreover, your example is not a double wide, it's a single wide.

They are no longer manufactured for sale in CA, but a single wide
in CA would still be a lot more than that, if you can find one,
most realtors won't touch them.

https://www.zillow.com/san-diego-ca/mobile/

 

If you want to know about other states, google it. I"m not interested in other states, nor are any Californians ( most of us, anyway ) care about living in other states.

I'm speaking of SAn Diego.

You can't purchase an uninstalled mobile.

I don't think realtors are selling single wides, as in your example, any more.

The banned manufacture of them in CA, as far as I know.

 

You can't put an RV in a mobile home park. "mobile homes" are 'manufactured homes" in CA, they are not "RVs".

Have fun finding a realtor selling a single wide in CA. They don't make them any more.

In CA, you can't buy a used home that is not uninstalled.

I do not care about other states. Their prices are not relevant here.

 

Some people will always be ****ed up, just as some people will appreciate a little help.

What else is new?

Eliminating welfare isn't going to happen, children will starve.

 

How so?

 

I pay $130 something, deducted from my soc sec, no copayments. The co payments stopped when I reached 66.

However, I paid I think $25 ( I forget ) for some new prescription glasses, and my coverage is up to $400 for a pair. I don't pay anything for routine doctor visits.

When I turned 66, I had a choice of staying with healthnet ( I was on ACA ) or going with medicare advantage, so I chose that which kept me in the healthnet group. That doesn't sound right, and so I don't really understand how it all works.

What I do recall is that when I signed up to the ACA just after it was rolled out, I was directed to Covered California, the state ACA exchange, where, when I was 64, when I first signed up I was offered a number of plans, so I chose a silver plan under Healthnet, $500 deductible, $10 copays, and $132 per month. I don't ever recall paying a deductible, though. But, I had an operation and I had to pay $900 my share of an expensive operation, and they spread that over three months.

There were bronze plans, something lke $50 per month, but the deductibles were horrific, and I found out just for a few bucks more per month, on a silver plan, it reduced my deductible to an affordable $500 per year. I keep hearing horror stories about deductibles and I'm wondering why they didn't look at the silver plans?

 

Google:

ACA expanded Medicare preventive coverage applies to all Medicare beneficiaries, whether they have Original Medicare or a Medicare Advantage plan.
The 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) expands Medicaid to all Americans under age 65 whose family income is at or below 133 percent of federal poverty guidelines ($14,484 for an individual and $29,726 for a family of four in 2011) by Jan. 1, 2014.
Federal financial assistance includes grants, property, Medicaid, Medicare Parts A, C and D payments, and tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies under Title I of the ACA. (Medicare Part B is not included.)

 

Since Medicare already had preventive coverage, I assume "expands" means eliminating the copay/deductible, in line with the requirements on ACA plans.

 

There is no 'CA' market, because these units are MOBILE. You could buy the one in Ohio and truck it to California. You could buy one in Florida and truck it to Maine. We're talking about mobile units which are virtually vehicles. And realtors aren't involved in their sale .. they're almost always sold by manufacturers (if new), or private individuals. Though I understand there are some specialist dealers, who keep used stock on a lot and sell like a car yard.

You seem to be very fixed on thinking of them as real estate, which they assuredly are not. When they're selling for $150k, much of that value is going to be held in the land or access to the land (via lease). I'm not talking about those situations ... I'm talking ONLY about the building itself. What is the cheapest 2 bed one bath unit you can buy? I'm guessing a couple of grand?

 

That's like never pulling off a bandaid because it might sting for a few minutes. The damage done by refusing to accept momentary pain is immense. Why on earth would you do that?

 

ACA is government provided health insurance. Your Advantage plan is provided by an insurance company but the premiums are paid by Medicare to the insurance company. If one has medicare, there is no point at all in the ACA. You are doing the right thing. Under Medicare part A there is a deductible of around $300 per day up to around $1500 dollars maximum for hospitalization and surgeries are covered entirely. I've had two surgeries under Medicare and I paid around $900 for one and the $1500 for the other for the hospital stays. Since the total cost of both surgeries was in excess of $200,000 that was quite a bargain. Part B has no deductibles but it does have co pays unless the Advantage plan you have pays them as well. My particular one has co pays but charges zero for the generic prescriptions I use. Well zero for the prescriptions but $280 annually for the prescription coverage. It is very very cheap.

Sounds like you have a good plan and you can be confident that medical bills won't do you in.

 

Wrong. It entitles you to pay less than the market rent for use of that land.

And your rent is controlled month to month.

Wrong.

Which means pad rents are that much higher, and people who are paying that much for a pad don't want to live in a cheap mobile, so they get expensive ones, add garages and landscaping, etc.

Climate is capitalized into land value, not improvement value.

I repeat: already disproved. Rent control gives you a pecuniary interest in the land. I already proved that with the article on the NYC rentier tenant.

He was a professional real estate industry lobbyist and liar. He swore on a stack of Bibles that if CA tenants voted for Prop 13, their rents would go down. They believed him, passed Prop 13, and their rents increased faster than before. Howard Jarvis was one of the most disgusting, despicable, dishonest public figures in CA history.

For making their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren the permanent slaves of rich, greedy, parasitic landowners and mortgage lenders? How dare you presume to suggest that seniors would willingly sacrifice their offspring's lives for their own financial comfort and convenience.

Forcing everyone to subsidize landowners, especially corporate ones that owned the land the longest.

No, that's just a bald lie by professional liar Howard Jarvis. It never happened. Not one verifiable case has ever been identified. All that happened was that some senior homeowners decided to cash in the hundreds of thousands of dollars the community had given them for doing nothing and move to neighborhoods better suited to their needs and (greatly increased) means.

It made CA the epicenter of the GFC and destroyed the finances and lives of thousands of times more people than the handful of greedy scum who shrieked that the community was unfairly shoveling so much unearned land wealth into their pockets so fast that they could not afford to repay even 1% of what they were being given.

I guess that "godsend" is why working people purchasing homes in CA now have to give their entire after-tax wages for the rest of their lives to rich, greedy, parasitic landowners and mortgage lenders just for permission to access the desirable public services and infrastructure their taxes already paid for once.

Except that the supply of land is fixed, and demand for it is identical to the expected future net after-tax subsidy to its owner.

No it's not. I understand them incomparably better than you, as proved above.

No they aren't. In both cases, rent control gives the tenant a pecuniary interest in the land.

I see. So, in what you are no doubt pleased to call your "mind," rent control is very different with apartment buildings vs mobile home pads because while evicting people from rent controlled apartments is very difficult, evicting them from rent controlled mobile home pads is verry difficult.

GARBAGE.

Accounting.

Ask the park owner how much he would pay to get your pad permanently exempted from rent control. That's your pecuniary interest in the land.

I dare you.

But it is recorded in the market price.

Ask park management how much they would pay to have your pad permanently exempted from rent control. I dare you.

You'd have to compare comparable installations, ages, etc.

See above. There are more factors than rent control in play. My point was about your situation.

I have read literally millions of words on the subjects of land and real estate.

Evidence?

Explained above. People who have to pay more pad rent do not want to live in low-rent accommodation.

That depends on the size, quality, finish, etc. You can certainly get a usable new single-wide for ~$50K uninstalled. But someone paying $2K/month for a pad isn't going to want to live in something like that.

 

I kept hearing in the media that ACA expanded medicare, though I wasn't sure how it did it.

 

Not at all, I'm speaking of California.

You could buy a used double wide (forget about single wides, they are hard to sell ) for $5000 or so if you look. But that would be in some other state, not CA. But there are permit and building code issues with moving older mobiles which will make it nightmarish to even bother with, which is why they are so cheap.

New double wides, your standard 20x58, typically go for $60k out of CA. In CA, they sell for $150k.


We're having this argument because you told me that my mobile home cannot be worth $135k.

You told me that my building has depreciated, and given it's age, it must logically therefore be worth very little.

That's why we are having this argument, and I'm explaining to you why you are wrong.

The title does not convey interest to the land, nor does the sales contract.

But, remember, a new one in CA we're talkin 20x58 , which is a modest double wide rectangular home, they go for about $150k plus $30k for the complete installation.

In CA now mind you, this is to refute your argument that my home is not worth $135k.

then you want to know about the building?

Why? You are not going to find a dealer in CA who sell used uninstalled mobiles. Too many code issues with them.

If you want to buy a used mobile in CA it will be from an individual ( via a realtor ) already installed on leased land.

Sure, you can find used mobiles in the $5000 range in other states, but you won't be able to move them to CA, you won't be able to get it permitted owing to new building codes. I doubt you will be able to get them permitted in the state you purchased them in, perhaps that is why they are so cheap.

The rest of the country I do not care about, so do your own homework. If you want to buy a used mobile in some other state, more power to ya.

First thing you must realize that in CA, with all the costs associated with moving in a new mobile ( buying old ones is just a bad idea because of buildling code nightmares and if it is older than 1976, you will not be allowed to move it, period) to move a home, install it, install a carport, cement slabs on the front and back (for the front porch and carport), struts ( heavy duty in CA ) tool sheds, plumbing, electricity, the works, is going to cast around $30k. New double wides in CA are selling for $150k, so tag on $30k, and you are out $180k in CA.

No one buys used mobile homes and moves them to CA. Dealers do not sell them, so where are you going to buy one? Not in CA.

That is why, in CA, it's a moot point and you are wrong about my mobile.

If you purchased a pre-owned mobile double wide, ( forget about single wides ).
it will be already installed on leased land. YOu won't be able to purchase a used mobile uninstalled at a dealer in CA.

The average price for a 20x57/8 used is about $135k, in CA.


Okay? This is to refute your original argument.

You seem to think that if you can buy a double wide in OH for $5k, that my home must be worth that or less.

No, because you are not going to buy and old mobile for $5k and move it to CA. Permits won't let you.

If you buy new one, say, for around $60k, ( the going rate out of state for a double wide 20x57 ) CA USE tax is 75%.

That brings you to $105k, and then there is the cost to move it, get permits, and long haul on two big rig trucks. across country that's easily going to be $50k to move and install two sides. You might save money this way, but it's a huge headache, permits, and I don't know the issues, really. I'd say it's risky.

You're better off just buy one locally already installed on leased land. Way less headaches.

 

I can explain it to you with a short answer. It forced people to buy it.
It also made middle class people pay for subsidized prices for poorer people. This allowed poorer people to buy a plan at a lower cost but at the same time made the prices of health insurance for middle class people increase.

Some people were screwed, because if they felt they could not afford health insurance, then the law would make them pay a penalty if they did not have it.
So they would be in an even worse position than they were in before.

The law also attempted to force states to supply more money to health plans for poor people, with some matching federal money. This requirement was later invalidated by a court decision, so only half of the states are doing this now.
(States would have been forced to pay to this subset of people or they would have lost complete federal funding in this program, which is a very substantial amount and would not have been a realistic option to choose)

 

The title does no such thing. Administration of the rent control program was moved from the City Attorney's Office to the City's Housing Division (now Housing and Neighborhood Services). I'd name my city, but I'd rather not.

Compare values of homes in my park to values of homes not controlled. No much difference.
If you are going to say I'm wrong, provide evidence. Homes closer to the ocean are more expensive, so location is the dominant factor of price.

No, I've been to parks in Oceanside, San Diego, they are practically identical to mine in northeast county.
Mobiles do not have garages, they hvae carports. Some modular homes have garages, those are a lot more expensive.

Whatever. Among the many considerations which makes San Diego desirable, weather is one. That improves the value.
If you want to get hoity toity about it, fine. No one cares.

You have proved anything. The article was about apartments in NYC.
"Pecuniary interest" legal mumbo jumbo which has very little meaning.
There is no interest on leased land, given nothing is recorded at the county recorder.
If there were an interest, there would be title to the land, a deed, and a recording.

What can I say, he kept real estate taxes down for homeowners, that's all I know.

Well, depends on which side of the fence you sit.
Why should, say, a senior citizen, who purchases a home in 1990 for $150k, and 10 years later, the price rises to $300k, pay taxes on $300k when it was not their fault speculators come to CA to purchase homes for investment, drive up the price, why should that senior citizen be forced to sell his home because he cannot afford the higher taxes, when others drove up the price?

Is that fair?

Prop 13 put a stop to it.

Progeny will be on higher income brackets, right along with inflation. The seniors incomes do not rise as fast as the general market place.

Oh for christ sakes. For a lot of people, people not savvy on investments and finance, simple people, their only hope of retirement is their home, it's increasing value and their ability to take cash when they can sell it in later years. Some opt for the reverse mortage, others opt to sell, yet others just will it to their kids.

What, you got a problem with that? What the **** is wrong with you?

Prop 13 shifted the tax burden away from home owners to state income tax.
For retirees, that is where is should be, in our opinion, and when you retire, you will pray for something like prop 13 to protect you.

Q: There’s a lot that has changed since Proposition 13, but largely because of it, schools rely mostly on income taxes, right?

A: It did lead to a shift from local property taxes to state income taxes. That, in some ways, has actually been pretty good for equality across schools compared to the system we had in the ‘70s, but bad for stability of finances over time. School financing has been subject much more to a boom-bust cycle than in the past.

You seem to be suggesting that prop 13 is the reason for high prices on property in CA?

That makes no sense. supply and demand is the reason, and that is not the fault of anyone but the mere fact that people want to live in CA.
California's desirability is the culprit. Why are you characterizing property owners as the culprit? The just follow the market, and the market is what it is.

Why should their be property taxes in the first place? It's a wealth tax, and I thought republicans were against wealth taxes.
Let taxes be on incomes and/or on homes over, say, $1,500,000 (adjusting annually for bracket creep ) and do away with prop 13.
That I would support. If you can afford that expensive of a home, you can afford the tax.

True, but the principle, supply and demand, remains true.

You haven't proved anything beyond your ability to use 'pecuniary interest' in a sentence, which, is an interest to be only understood by contrasting
it with non-pecuniary interest, where non pecuniary interests is an interest not related to money, and pecuniary interest is that particular interest as it is related to money.

So, when you say 'rent control gives you a pecuniary interest' all you are really saying is that one can benefit monetarily by living in a rent controlled apartment since it allows you to save more money than you otherwise would have. But, wait a minute, that is a self evident fact, so why are using using an arcane legal term to describe that which self evident? . That is all the term really means. It has no 'interest' in the sense of 'title' 'vested interest' etc. And for some bizarre reason, you seem to be implying it does. Methinks you do not even know what the term means.

Well, they are different in that way, yes.

Well, you are saying that, in terms of 'pecuniary interest' they are the same.

So? As I explained above, the term has little legal significance in the way you using it.

"pecuniary interest' is not a vested interest, there is no title, no recording. All 'pecuniary' means is 'pertaining to money'. That's it.

Yeah, I am interested in cheap rent. who wouldn't? That's your 'pecuniary interest' brought down to every day speak.

It's just an abstraction. You keep tossing the term around trying to sound like you know something, but it really doesn't mean much, when the rubber hits the road.

As for the park owner, that's their problem. Since they purchased it many years ago, I'm sure they are doing just fine.

It's a corporation. Why bother?

Meaningless statement.
I'll repeat it again for you:
'pecuniary interest' is an abstraction, one does not hold actual ownership of the land, no title to the land is conveyed and nothing is recorded at the country recorder.

It's a corporation. Why bother? I'm not going to lose any sleep over a corporation who bought the property in the 60s, probably own it outright, and can afford to maintain it by virtue thereof. I'm not hearing any complaints from the corporation.

Double wides in Oceanside CA on lots (northwest county San Diego), are going for around $200k +.
In north east San Diego they are going for $135k, with rent control.
It's the Ocean that drives up the price, you know, the smell of that wonderful salt air when you get up in the morning.

Not much difference, other than rents go up near the ocean.

Which, apparently has given you an overinflated importance of the term 'pecuniary'. Wonderful.

The lower cost regions are about 25 miles inland from the ocean, along a radial curve from downtown, spanning from El Cajon in the East, up to Santee then Poway, then Escondido and San Marcos. I live cheaper side of that radius. You go closer to the Ocean or downtown, prices go up.

We dont' call them 'pads' around here, they are called 'spaces'. Like I said, leases go up the closer you get to the ocean.
And just because they are near the ocean, doesn't mean they are prettier. Oceanside is very much like Escondido, a large working class sector, just closer to the ocean, hence the name.

Who buys single wides? Who wants to live in 700 sq ft?

I think there are some 150 mobiles in my park, most are double wides, a few modular ones that are fancier, and I've only seen one single wide, so far.

$2k per month? I don't think they are that high. I pay $715 per month. But I have 1140 sq ft.

But i was wrong about Oceanside, I just checked, the park rents are cheaper. $500 - $600. How about that? However, the mobiles themselves are a lot more expensive. I think I just figured out why. Seniors would rather save big bucks on the purchase price, and pay more for rent, inland. Which is why rents are more expensive in Escondido, but prices are higher in Oceanside.

Supply and demand.

Those parks are 55 and over, with family parks the rents I think are about $1k.

 

I would say gang culture has done more harm.

 

Chicken or egg? Gangs appeal to young males who have no male role model in the household.

 

When public money is being spent it must be equitably spent...not 80% for the north side of the tracks and 20% on the south side...same on both sides!

 

Taxation is a collective effort not a personalized effort.

No one is taking from you, personally, and giving to someone else, personally.

You pay taxes, they go into a common fund, and they are distributed based on governmental policies for the greater good.

Your complaint doesn't factor in the nature of taxation, which is such that tax policy will never please every one.

For your complaint, I'm just miffed that the government spends on a bloated military budget. Taxes, and how there are spent, cannot possibly please the entire electorate, whether it goes your way or my way, or someone else's way, or not.

In other words, welcome to the club.

 

The ACA inequities could easily be fixed. Any major policy initiative the scope and size of the ACA is going to have areas to fix.

However, the republicans would not allow for it to be fixed, because they didn't want Obama to have a lasting legacy, and if it did persist, they wanted to make it as flawed as they possibly good, in the hopes that people would vote for republicans.

That is the current state of politics, republican tribalism over the greater good and greater need.